Sunday, December 02, 2007

state run health care, Brits show us how not to do it.

i know there has been a lot of debate the last couple of years regarding a national health care program. as a matter of fact, it has become something of a major issue in California politics.
but what is it that they are trying to do to us in the name of "we're from the government, and we're here to help"?
let's take a look at just one of the problems they are facing in Britain, one of the industrialized world's leading providers of state sponsored health care.
a clip from the article:
Dr Peter Kirkbride, the chief spokesman on radiotherapy for the NHS, said the NHS spent £100m on the breast cancer drug Herceptin in 2006.
But he told Radio 4's The Investigation only about 500 patients had benefited - at a cost of about £200,000 each.
If that was spent on radiotherapy, it could have a dramatic impact, he said.

The article goes on to state that the drug the national health care system decided on is only good for 10% of the successes in the fight against cancer. surgery and radiotherapy account for 90%. "Dr Kirkbride said: "There is a lot of publicity about the role of chemotherapy but the consensus is of all cancers that are cured, half are cured by surgeries, 40% by radiotherapy and only 10% by drugs."
but they can't buy the machinery necessary for a 40% vice 10% success, because the drug they've hung their hat on costs so much money that there isn't enough left to buy the machines needed.
think about that. in a state run system, there is no competition, no market driven protocols and techniques. there's only what the government says is ok. in the last few years there have been numerous reports that those at the top of the British healthcare industry have stated that triage of patients that includes their lifestyles and age will determine whether or not they get any treatment at all because the system can't handle everyone's needs. so if you are overweight, have diabetes, are older than some predetermined cutoff, or fail to meet the government's standards required to receive treatment, you are screwed.
is this what we are looking for?
is a health care system run by the government what we really need, considering the debacle the senior prescription drug program has turned into?
are we really so far gone as individuals and self sufficient/reliant citizens that we no longer are willing to care for ourselves? i know that individual or family healthcare coverage is expensive. $500.00 is a low number i've heard.
for many, that might seem like an unsurmountable amount of money. but let's be realistic. for those that $500 is truly too much for, the government has medicare, welfare, and medicade already in place. but for most Americans, the thought of only having one car, no cable tv or cell phones, or a myriad of other "essentials" that most people in the world do without is hardship. spend $500 a month on my family's healthcare and do away with my wide screen plasma tv? screw that. i'll bitch and complain until the politicians give it to me, just so they can be elected.

it was said a long time ago by someone a lot smarter than me that the end of a society occurs when society decides it can give itself gifts.
where will we be in 30 years? i'm afraid to even think about it.

the snips were from a BBC news article posted a couple of days ago. you can read the whole aritcle at the link: full article here

Labels: , ,


Blogger Just Another Old Geezer said...

Yeah, just what I want. More gubmint involvement in my life. And I would like for just one of these libtards to show me wherein it is writ that the government should be responsible for everyones everything?

And 30 years from now? I'll be looking at the roots but maybe my kids and probably my grandkids and maybe some great-grandkids will still be looking at the green side so yeah, I'm concerned about our future.

12/3/07, 9:38 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home